• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

HOI4 Dev Diary - Naval Production, Repair and Damage

Hi everyone! Sorry about the late diary. We had to hunt down some gremlins in the machinery before stuff could be screenshotted. Today we are going to talk about quite a lot of big changes to naval production and repair as well as the new critical hits system for ships.

Ship Production
The current system of producing ships where you can assign 15 dockyards to the production of an individual vessel leads to results that are both quite ahistorical as well as not feeling like we want the naval play to feel. With big countries able to replace the loss of a big capital ship without much sweat it makes them less precious, and so we are changing this:
  • A Capital Ship can use up to 5 dockyards in its construction
  • Other ships can use 10 dockyards
  • Convoys can use the full 15
This essentially shifts capital ship construction speed to make each ship slower to make, but you can still build several in parallel. Constructing capital ships is complex and not exactly suitable for optimized assembly lines while we felt this still fit convoys very well with other ships in the middle. Speaking of capital ships, the definition is now a bit more flexible and will depend on the inclusion of certain design elements in your ships (such as a carrier flight deck or heavy guns), so if you construct your ships with those be aware that it will impact how streamlined their construction can be made.
Pasted_image_at_2018-09-12__3_58_PM.png


It is also possible to add custom names when you set up construction. The perfect time to remember to name your battleships awesome custom names rather than having to remember and do it once they are done. You can queue up several names if you so wish.


Ship Repair
Repair is also changing drastically. Before, repairing a vessel was free and just took time, now it’s using your naval industry to do so. You can decide how many dockyards to assign as a max and the level of the naval base will decide how much can be leveraged in each one. So if you have a level 5 naval base you can leverage 5 dockyards there and repair 5 ships at once.

repair.jpg


Bases can be prioritized for receiving dockyards if you have a lot of fleets suffering at once in various places and can even be disabled for repair so you don't accidentally send ships to repair where the enemy will sink them etc. You can even repair in friendly ports if you have docking rights, but are likely to have lower priority than their ships if there is a competition for attention.
Screenshot_1.jpg

If you look closely at the damaged Deutschland heavy cruiser you will see that there is a warning icon on top of it. This signifies that it has taken a critical hit to its propeller and is suffering a big penalty to speed...

Critical Hits
On top of the propeller damage shown off above there are a lot of different critical hits a ship can suffer in combat. The idea behind these is to add some cool storytelling to the fate of ships, and to introduce some lucky random elements. For example imagine there is a lucky hit on a fast and powerful German surface raiding vessel damaging its propeller or engine. Suddenly it is no longer able to escape the royal navy’s wrath as it has planned to do.

Different kind of hits have different effect, and also will cause different amount of direct damage. We are still finalizing the amount of types we have, but here is a non-complete list to wet your appetites:
  • Main Battery Turret Destroyed - reduced attack on main weapons and damage
  • Secondary Batteries Destroyed - reduced attack on secondary weapons
  • Broken Propeller - lower speed
  • Rudder jammed - reduced ability to disengage
  • Magazine hit - massive damage
  • Torpedo Tubes destroyed - reduced torpedo attack and damage
  • Heavy fires - reduced org and damage
  • Ballast tanks inoperable - reduced stealth for subs
  • Radar Inoperable - reduced detection
Suffering a critical hit is a good reason to repair your ships and they need to be fully repaired to remove the effects of the critical hit. There are several admiral traits designed to help you cope as well.

traits.jpg


“Safety First” Lowers the chance of the ships under this admirals command suffering critical hits in the first place while “Crisis Magician” unleashes your internal Scotty which will reduce any effects of critical hits through jury rigged repair, fancy maneuvering and probably a fair amount of god old duct tape.

Is this all? No, there will also be a brand new ship designer and the ability to refit. But that ship is not yet watertight, so it will sail in a future diary instead :)

See you all next week again for more Man the Guns updates!


Rejected Titles:
  • Duct tape and you - keeping the Kriegsmarine afloat in a crisis!
  • The rise of Boaty McBoatface
  • This dev diary was taking on water
  • There is nothing a scottish engineer with a degree in technobabble can’t fix
  • What are you sinking about?
 
If convoys still can't retreat from battle with MTG I will quite literally steel a military convoy, get engaged in a military naval battle and retreat it, before jumping out of a building just to demonstrate that it is in fact possible for convoys to turn in the water and not kill A HUGE NAVAL INVASION THAT SHOULD HAVE WORKED FINE EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT MY CONVOYS WILL NOT F-ING RETREAT!

ok
 
We really need proper troop transports and landing craft and more fleshed out convoys.

Later convoys were armed and had destroyer escorts.

We should be able to assign destroyers to escort convoys.
 
To add to the storytelling, if a ship takes a critical hit, add to a log which unit inflicted it (and on that unit's log as well).

Would be interesting to be able to see that it was this one plucky destroyer which disabled the rudder of the fast German merchant raider.


This I like. Anything that adds to immersion and RP possibilities is great in my book.
 
We really need proper troop transports and landing craft and more fleshed out convoys.

Later convoys were armed and had destroyer escorts.

We should be able to assign destroyers to escort convoys.

Indeed, especially since the former level that might have held "corvettes" and "frigates" ("Escorts" from HoI3) went away.
 
I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but I would love to see fleets treated as armies with a similar interface.
Transfer ships from fleet to another should be as simple as selecting the desired units and dragging them to the destination fleet.
And if I decide to transfer one or more ships from Fleet 1 to Fleet 2, the assigned ships should create a Fleet 2 [detached] and travel to the designed fleet operation area.
To be forced to put both fleets in the same area to drag ships from one fleet to another is impractical.
Same thing with production. A ship produced in the USA should not magically appear in my Philippines fleet. Like land units they would have to be created near the dockyard in a "detached" fleet and travel all the way to their designated operation area.

Simon
 
Last edited:
Another nice addition that would make the HoI more realistic is the possibility to build assault ships, or Landing Crafts (LC and LCT) to land tanks and troops directly on the beach, like in that loading screen picture of HoI IV. After all, convoys are cargo ships, unsuitable for amphibious operations, needing docks or boats and small LCs to take the troops to land.
In this case, performing an amphibious attack with assault ships would provide a bonus to the attacking units.

Simon
 
I actually just read World War II at Sea: A Global Perspective and one of the biggest things that the author mentions is the lack of available LSTs (Landing Ship, Tank) that meant that Overlord had to be postponed more than a few times because of the landings in Italy or because of losses sustained in Operation Tiger, or trying to use some in the Pacific. It is seriously a major bone of contention between the various theaters and their commanders trying to bring their corner of the war to a swift conclusion. It was so major that after the first year that the US was involved in the war, the moved LST production only below destroyers.
 
I actually just read World War II at Sea: A Global Perspective and one of the biggest things that the author mentions is the lack of available LSTs (Landing Ship, Tank) that meant that Overlord had to be postponed more than a few times because of the landings in Italy or because of losses sustained in Operation Tiger, or trying to use some in the Pacific. It is seriously a major bone of contention between the various theaters and their commanders trying to bring their corner of the war to a swift conclusion. It was so major that after the first year that the US was involved in the war, the moved LST production only below destroyers.
I was thinking about LSTs when I posted. This ships are the "big brother" of the much smaller LCT, which where used to ferry the troops and tanks from the convoys to the beach.
I think that planning an amphibious assault using LSTs should give some kind of bonus to the invading force.
 
Another nice addition that would make the HoI more realistic is the possibility to build assault ships, or Landing Crafts (LC and LCT) to land tanks and troops directly on the beach, like in that loading screen picture of HoI IV. After all, convoys are cargo ships, unsuitable for amphibious operations, needing docks or boats and small LCs to take the troops to land.
In this case, performing an amphibious attack with assault ships would provide a bonus to the attacking units.

Simon

It would be nice if the whole amphibious operation situation wasn't some combination of "land immediately next to a port, where there is no garrison, take port, pour half your army in," and "bust through the garrison on the port, because your division is pretty nice and the garrison division is garbage, then pour half your army in".

I love the alt-history conceptually, but tbh I want it to be tied to a fairly realistic combat simulation, so I'd like amphibious operations to involve smaller number of divisions, and maybe we'd have to bring our own ports.

I'm sure I'm in the minority there, where I *want* the Grand Strategy sandbox, but I also want the operational level details to be reasonably accurate, if flexible.
 
It would be nice if the whole amphibious operation situation wasn't some combination of "land immediately next to a port, where there is no garrison, take port, pour half your army in," and "bust through the garrison on the port, because your division is pretty nice and the garrison division is garbage, then pour half your army in".

I love the alt-history conceptually, but tbh I want it to be tied to a fairly realistic combat simulation, so I'd like amphibious operations to involve smaller number of divisions, and maybe we'd have to bring our own ports.

I'm sure I'm in the minority there, where I *want* the Grand Strategy sandbox, but I also want the operational level details to be reasonably accurate, if flexible.
Actually, if you "pour half your army" there you will suffer penalty because of the supply lines. After disembarking, make sure to upgrade that port to its full capacity ASAP.
 
Well, the US wasn't the only country with repair ships (e. g. Captain Hara's account, "Japanese Destroyer Captain", mentions several interactions with Akashi, which played a rather important role for the Combined Fleet), but I get what you're saying. I agree that such vessels should be quite rare (tbh, I'd like fleets in HoI4 to be smaller in general, but the upcoming changes thankfully seem to move the game into this very direction), so my aforementioned concern regarding the cost-effectiveness of such a feature would apply.

I'd be less concerned about it potentially being too much micro-management as it'd literally just be another icon to move via right-click, and you're done, but I guess it's true that the small number of countries that would make use of such a feature would just render it too special to implement.

Hypothetically speaking, tying it to a port facility as a more abstracted, mobile "upgrade" would be an elegant alternative; there's no need to represent an auxiliary vessel as an actual 3D-modeled ship on the map, and it would still alleviate the need to permanently upgrade ports just because you'd like to have temporary repair facilities there. The only concern would be that you still need to control the port (necessitating occupation), but if I recall correctly, repair ships often anchored and worked from within friendly ports anyways.

That's what I was thinking of more than putting them in as actual ships to be built. Something like a researchable support company but for fleets instead of your land forces. For example adding a submarine tender gives a bonus to their range or efficiency when performing missions, or adding a repair ship allows the fleet to slowly repair critical damage enough to reduce a penalty by X% (or completely depending on the type of crit) but still require a port for full repairs.

I think seaplane tenders do have a place in HoI4 though, especially for missions like convoy escort or patrols. They seem like they would be ideal for scouting and ASW, while still being capable of very limited CAS and naval attacks against anything that isn't a submersible.
 
Historically, are there any examples of large fleets being upgraded en masse? Not really, right?
Apologies if this has been addressed later on in the thread, but picking it up now:-

The IJN more or less rebuilt all of their BB's in the 30's, that certainly classes as a major fleet and all of their capital ships (ex CV's). The British did the same with the QE class (started it, not finished) which would have represented 50% of their BB's (the R class were not considered capable of being rebuilt to something approaching modern standards and were due to get replaced by the KGV's). The USN did the same with the standards post Pearl Harbour (helped that most were almost wrecked during that event). The Italians similar, with the Conti's and Doria's were rebuilt, which accounted for 100% of their old BB's. So of all the naval powers in the run up to WW2, only France did not go through a major rebuild program for their BB's (I do not count Russia as a naval major of this time frame).
 
So of all the naval powers in the run up to WW2, only France did not go through a major rebuild program for their BB's
True, though this was because they'd already begun construction of various new, modern ships to replace/augment older vessels. France had some of the best, most modern ships in the world during the run-up to WW2; in 1939 they had the best destroyers and light cruisers amongst all of the Allied nations, and numerous brand new capital ships (battleships, battlecruisers and carriers) under construction as well - some were ready and in action by the time France fell, but most weren't.

The only thing France didn't really bother with were new heavy cruisers after the Algérie.

Their old battleships were all pre-1914 and so weren't worth re-building at all; the Jean Bart had already been decommissioned and demilitarized in 1937, and the rest of them were obsolete second-rate ships that were simply too old and cramped to invest in expensive, time-consuming rebuilds. In that respect, they were similar to the Revenge-class vessels you mentioned (although far inferior in terms of firepower and protection).

Also, unlike the UK and USA, France had a very limited number of slipways capable of holding large capital ships, so the most logical step was to prioritize them for brand new, modern vessels that would be better long-term investments.
 
I know this is going against the grain here but, ships weren't built using multiple dockyards, as far as I know. You didn't get a battleship out faster by 'divvying up the work'. I think ships should take only one dockyard, which would be assigned when they are commissioned. And, the construction time should depend on the ship type with any associated upgrades.
 
I know this is going against the grain here but, ships weren't built using multiple dockyards, as far as I know. You didn't get a battleship out faster by 'divvying up the work'. I think ships should take only one dockyard, which would be assigned when they are commissioned. And, the construction time should depend on the ship type with any associated upgrades.

In a shipbuilding yard, for example, you could have the hull of 1 BB, or BC, or CV taking up the whole space, or a small number of DD hulls using that same space at the same time, up to CL size (not sure of CA's, not come across them being built concurrently in the same yard space).

So in game term essence, when you assign the maximum of 15 yards to a BB, they not only get 'a yard', but all the resources to optimise it's construction. If you allocate the same degree of resources to smaller ships, then you get a lot more of them in the same time frame taken up optimally building 1 BB.
I much prefer the option of limiting major construction to some form of capital investiture in port facilities. Classic example currently are the new QE class CV's for the RN, there are only a couple of ports in the UK that can actually handle them, so only a couple of ports that could have built them from scratch if they had not been constructed on a modular basis. Classic Kaiser quote/paraphrase "[we build our yards to fit our ships, not our ships to fit our yards]".
 
In a shipbuilding yard, for example, you could have the hull of 1 BB, or BC, or CV taking up the whole space, or a small number of DD hulls using that same space at the same time, up to CL size (not sure of CA's, not come across them being built concurrently in the same yard space).

American heavy and light cruisers were only a few feet different in length between the two, but the Americans had the caveat that they built their vessels with an eye towards service in the Pacific, and thus even their light cruisers were going to have big hulls for fuel (and fuel efficiency).

So in game term essence, when you assign the maximum of 15 yards to a BB, they not only get 'a yard', but all the resources to optimise it's construction. If you allocate the same degree of resources to smaller ships, then you get a lot more of them in the same time frame taken up optimally building 1 BB.
I much prefer the option of limiting major construction to some form of capital investiture in port facilities. Classic example currently are the new QE class CV's for the RN, there are only a couple of ports in the UK that can actually handle them, so only a couple of ports that could have built them from scratch if they had not been constructed on a modular basis. Classic Kaiser quote/paraphrase "[we build our yards to fit our ships, not our ships to fit our yards]".

I would like a mechanic to differentiate slipways and the like and then the "naval factories" contribute to actually constructing the ships. Be a much better reflection of what's going on.
 
We really need proper troop transports and landing craft and more fleshed out convoys.

Later convoys were armed and had destroyer escorts.

We should be able to assign destroyers to escort convoys.
The funny and somewhat sad thing is HoI3 had all of these. Other previous HoIs as well, with the exception of landing craft.
 
One thing that isn't clear to me, though I welcome the change to a max of 5 dockyards for Capitals...

Surely these 5 dockyards have to be in the same province... Otherwise Capitals of a certain size and complexity should not be able to be built?

In other words to build supercarriers, advanced BBs etc you need to plan ahead and have at least one province with a large cluster of shipyards. Something along the lines of 2 dockyards = destroyers, 3 = light cruisers, 4 = heavy cruisers and 5 for the true capitals.

Not just for build either... In order to refit or repair a large capital they should have to go to a province which has the facilities commensurate with the ship class. a 30,000 ton BB needs a dry dock of a large size and cranes rated to hundreds or thousands of tonnes. A DD much less so.

Would make the large dockyards strategic targets worthy of special attention